## Facts

- Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. operated an adult bookstore in New York.
- A state police investigator bought two sexually explicit films from the store, viewed them, and concluded they were obscene under New York law.
- The investigator presented the films and an affidavit to a Town Justice; the Justice viewed the films and agreed they were obscene.
- The Justice issued a search warrant authorizing seizure of other copies of the two films and an arrest warrant for the clerk who sold them.
- The affidavit asserted the store contained “similar” films and printed matter, and the investigator asked that the Justice accompany officers to decide on-site what else was illegal and seizable.
- The Justice added language authorizing seizure of items the court “independently” determined were possessed unlawfully, but the warrant listed no additional items at issuance and left the description effectively blank to be completed later.
- The Justice joined the investigator and other officers at the store; the clerk was arrested and a search of the premises lasted nearly six hours.
- During the search, the Justice examined films, magazines, books, and related equipment and decided on the spot which items were “obscene” and should be seized.
- Numerous items (including films, magazines, and projectors) were seized; the warrant’s item list was completed only after the search, following an inventory at a police barracks.
- Lo-Ji Sales was charged with second-degree obscenity; the trial court denied a motion to suppress the seized evidence, and Lo-Ji entered a guilty plea while preserving the suppression issue for appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a warrant that does not particularly describe items to be seized at issuance, and instead leaves obscenity determinations to be made during the search, violates the Fourth Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment).
2. Whether the Town Justice’s participation in the search negated the requirement that warrants be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.
3. Whether the search was valid because the store was open to the public or because the clerk’s compliance constituted consent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment and held the search and seizures unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The Court held the warrant was invalid because, aside from the two purchased films, it failed to particularly describe what could be seized and left that decision to officials conducting the search.
- The Court rejected “open-ended” warrants that are completed during or after execution and treated the procedure as akin to the general warrants the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.
- The Court held the Town Justice’s on-site role did not cure the constitutional defects and instead undermined the neutrality required of a warrant-issuing magistrate.
- The Court rejected the State’s argument that public access to the store or the clerk’s cooperation justified a broad exploratory search beyond Fourth Amendment limits.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to particularly describe the things to be seized at the time the warrant issues; a warrant cannot be left to be filled in during or after the search.
- A warrant may not delegate to executing officials the discretion to decide what items are seizable; such discretion risks a general search.
- A warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; judicial participation in the execution of a search, especially as part of the search team, is inconsistent with that role.
- A business open to the public does not thereby consent to an unlimited search and seizure; compliance with an asserted warrant is not voluntary consent.
- When searches target books, films, and other expressive materials, strict enforcement of particularity and judicial neutrality helps prevent unlawful suppression of protected expression, even when the case is resolved on Fourth Amendment grounds.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated an open-ended obscenity search in which a Town Justice accompanied police and selected items to seize, holding that the Fourth Amendment forbids warrants lacking particularity and requires a neutral, detached magistrate rather than a judicial officer who functions as part of the search party.


Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979)